From: terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-24 11:27:24
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...>
>
>
> > > Anything can lead to poor programming practices. It's one thing
to
> > call a
> > > state-changing interface dangerous, but informational
interfaces?
> > When you
> > > need the info and the library doesn't provide it, you're really
up
> > a creek
> > > with no paddle.
> >
> > I agree totally, but if an interface gives no practical
usefullness
> > but can still lead to poor practices should you still consider
> > including it? What purpose would it serve to check the
cancellation
> > state? Alexander Terekhov appears to have the same reservations
that
> > I do based on existing practice in Java.
>
> This sounds suspiciously like legislating morality.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What is this? (Pardon me for my poor English and ignorance).
Anyway, I do not want someone to interpret my comments as
*claims* that Java's termination/interrupt model is nonsense.
What I am trying to say is that while perhaps being useful
in some cases (which I fail to identify or consider NOT really
important), in no way it should REPLACE the existing simple
and default PTHREAD cancel/exit model. It probably could be
added on top or as non-default alternative if you really want
it and think that you could convince every POSIX vendor out
there to add this new beast.
regards,
alexander.